FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-04-2011, 03:37 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Conowingo, Maryland
Posts: 577
Default Confusion at the tomb

Rabbi Tovia Singer has prepared this interesting chart on his website, outreachjudaism. http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/cru-chart.html

I would like your opinions and feedback of it. Christians, I am interested in rebuttals especially.
DoubtingDave is offline  
Old 12-04-2011, 04:00 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: look behind you...
Posts: 2,107
Default

To me that fact that the story is not cleaned up the way one would expect it to be if it were just a fictional account.. This leads me to suspect there was an actual person from whom the stories enimated. Instead we have stories that seem to originate from several different sources as one would get from a mouth to mouth accounting
OLDMAN is offline  
Old 12-04-2011, 06:18 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Florida Panhandle
Posts: 9,176
Default

That does seem to be one of the popular ways to look at this, i.e. if the story were being
fabricated from whole cloth, they would have done a better job of it.

Of course, having these inconsistent oral traditions show up in what some people
want to believe is this perfectly accurate, inerrant book can be a bit of a problem.
dockeen is offline  
Old 12-04-2011, 08:13 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

I've been a life-long student of the gospels, and problems at the tomb early on undermined inerrantism. However, the discrepancies resolve somewhat on closer study, and I extracted three eyewitness testimonies in my Noesis article "Resurrection Sources". Basically Matthew and Mark agree (based on what the Apostle Matthew wrote) and Luke and John agree based on what came from Peter and John Mark. The Walk to Emmaus is a third eyewitness record from a Simon (not Peter).
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Resurrection
Adam is offline  
Old 12-04-2011, 09:21 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Yeah, sure. and I can get you thirty present day and identifiable 'eyewitnesses' willing to attest to Benny Hinn's miracles,
or to all of the details their abduction and anal probe by aliens.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 12-04-2011, 09:30 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: look behind you...
Posts: 2,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dockeen View Post
That does seem to be one of the popular ways to look at this, i.e. if the story were being
fabricated from whole cloth, they would have done a better job of it.

Of course, having these inconsistent oral traditions show up in what some people
want to believe is this perfectly accurate, inerrant book can be a bit of a problem.
This is true. I think when we also look at most of what is attributed to Jesus in parables rings true. However, when the authors refer to Jesus climbing a mountain alone and then refer to what happened to him while there, it starts to sound suspect. One really has to deconstruct the whole story x 3 to garner what and who was the one now refered to as Jesus.
OLDMAN is offline  
Old 12-04-2011, 09:31 PM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

I haven't read the link in the OP thoroughly, but it looks like a variant of Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.
Quote:
I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?
Toto is offline  
Old 12-04-2011, 10:45 PM   #8
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

I am confident that the bible is inerrant with 'no -ism about it' and see the difference here as complimenting each other in the message that is conveyed to the reader. IOW there is a reason why Mary the mother of James was not there in John but was at the other three and why only Magdalene was at John's. I can also see why Luke would draw a crowd but not Matthew and Mark.

Then I also see why Luke and John 'lifted the stone' instead of 'rolled it away' in that 'to lift' it means to remove by comprehension while rolling it away speaks to have been crushed by it, . . . after all, Jews were stone throwers in those day to settle arguments and Peters keen insight was to be the rock on which Jesus promised to built that church he had in mind. So it is no secret that stones speak on behalf of truth and here then the deciding factor as to whether Jesus would go to heaven or back to Galilee is already evident in this 'stone message' that itself was predictable with Matthew and Mark's Jesus complaining already on the cross that 'God had forsaken him.' In Matthew the 'angel of Light' rolled the stone away and I think they call him Lucifer as well, and then in Mark he does not even exist for Mark and would not be able have it rolled away. Mark does not know about angles and just leaves is closed, and then, are we not always trying to lift the very stone we are standing on when we are wrong?

Magdalene would be there in all four as she is illuminated by the soul and so by the othe Mary or angels send by her, and since there was no birth in John the mother of James would not be there . . . which kind of makes the birth story an allegory that describes the 'incipience' of new life 'awareness' and hence Herod can easy do his thing in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke where the manger and the swaddling cloth showed precaution all around.
Chili is offline  
Old 12-04-2011, 11:13 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLDMAN View Post
To me that fact that the story is not cleaned up the way one would expect it to be if it were just a fictional account.
You have just proved that the King Arthur stories are not fiction. I have seen several King Arthur movies, and each is inconsistent with the others in several specifics, some of them rather important.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 12-04-2011, 11:15 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dockeen View Post
That does seem to be one of the popular ways to look at this, i.e. if the story were being fabricated from whole cloth, they would have done a better job of it.
Popular, yes. Accurate, no.
Doug Shaver is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:03 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.